Jamba Follow Strobing vs. WoW TOS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'algol',index.php?page=Thread&postID=187166#post18 7166

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=187157#post 187157

Malkorix's followup second statements...do not apply to Keyclone

---

Of course they do. The reason using Keyclone doesn't get us banned is that it STILL respects those boundaries. Blizzard's approval is and always has been dependent on that - and is given to the extent it is only because it respects those boundaries.

---

And where is the "prevarication"?

A summary of the statements would be that:
1) Keyclone, in its (then current) state was legal.
2) As long as the listed conditions are met, Keyclone should still be legal.

Since the conditions ARE met, then it should logically follow that Keyclone is still legal.

Would you say those statements are true? If so, there is no prevarication, since prevarication is deviance from truth. This is generally considered a logical argument.


As for 100% confidence -- that is my point. Confidence is an opinion, not a statistical fact. By obfuscating an opinion with opinion-based numerical analysis, you're playing off user's expectations that a statistical statement should be based on fact. The truth of the matter (and my argument), STILL, is "I am x% confident in my OPINION that..." and not "it is x% true that the FACTS are...".

It is incredibly misleading to take opinion, mix in a subjective opinion in the form of a numerical analysis, and hide the information that normally indicates opinion so that it is taken as fact. I'd be happy to leave this thread alone (as I've already said my piece long ago) as long as people don't mislead -- accidentally or otherwise -- people into thinking their statements are true factual summaries of actual authority. I, at least, make it a painstaking priority to be clear when I am regurgitating fact (usually, if not always, with resources) or spouting opinion.

I've challenged people to refute the facts that I've made in this thread, and haven't really seen anything. Perhaps those with a problem with "the generall acceptance that Vyndree is speaking as an authority" to wonder why that is... Perhaps because I generally am simply repeating and cross-referencing official statements? Perhaps because, when I do make an opinion I try to make it clear that it is an opinion (because I have gotten flack about that in the past)? Perhaps because I have a history of being as correct and precise as possible? Perhaps because I enjoy logic problems?

All I'm saying is, if my statements are generally taken as fact, it's not my doing (though it may be the result of a history of factual summaries and resource links). Fact is fact (and resources linked where appropriate), and opinion is clearly marked with "I think", "I feel", "FYI" and the like.


We're winding down the rabbit hole, so if you want to discuss further I'd be happy to try and regroup in a new thread in the OT forum if it doesn't have anything to do with Jamba strobing / WoW ToU. Or, you're always welcome to PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=187424#post 187424

And where is the "prevarication"?

---

You mean the part where they say it's okay and immediately backpedal? We've been over this...but if you don't like my word choice, it doesn't really help the thread much to keep arguing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'algol',index.php?page=Thread&postID=187430#post18 7430

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=187424#post 187424

And where is the "prevarication"?

---

You mean the part where they say it's okay and immediately backpedal? We've been over this...but if you don't like my word choice, it doesn't really help the thread much to keep arguing it.

---

It wasn't a backpedal. Nothing in the 2nd statement contradicted what was said in the first. To backpedal would mean that the statements would have to contradict each other in some way (which would also imply "prevarication").

The second statement is a IF->THEN statement. It is quite different than saying "Keyclone is OK." and following up with "Keyclone is NOT ok" -- that's a contradiction. "Keyclone is OK", "IF software uses delays/timers, it is not OK" are two seperate but not contradictory statements.

It could be like me saying "It is raining today" and then saying "If it is raining, then I will have to wear my coat". The second statement has nothing to do with whether it is raining or not -- in fact, it is still raining. Whether I'm wearing a coat or not right now is also irrelevant, since they are two seperate statements and the second statement has nothing to do (since it is a conditional) with the current state of affairs. In fact, tomorrow I could be wearing a coat and it could NOT be raining and there STILL would be no "prevarication".

On a similar argument, I could say "Algol is not violating the WoW ToU/EULA" and follow up with "If algol were botting, he'd be violating the WoW ToU/EULA" -- as you can see, both statements are literally true -- but neither makes any prevarication about whether or not you're botting, or whether you WILL bot in the future. They merely 1) state that you are not, at the present time, violating the ToU/EULA -- and, 2) if you were to bot in the future, you would THEN be violating the ToU/Eula. As you can see, I'm not "backpedaling" at all, merely stating facts and following up with a conditional that (hopefully) will never occur in the future.

Like I said, you're tunneling the conversation into a totally different topic -- so if you want to continue it, create another thread and I'll be happy to continue the logic argument.